Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,727 chars

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

of grievances.” U.S. CONST. amend I.

Billings seemingly argues that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated

because Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless fired him in retaliation for raising “issues of public

concern.” Br. of Appellant at 12.

To support a § 1983 claim, Billings must have showed that he spoke on a matter of public

concern as a public citizen while acting outside the scope of his official duties. Karl v. City of

Mountlake Terrace, 678 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012). Whether an employee’s speech

addresses a matter of public concern is a pure question of law that must be determined “by the

content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Connick v.

Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 148 n.7, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983). “[S]peech that

deals with ‘individual personnel disputes and grievances’ and that would be of ‘no relevance to

the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies’ is generally not of ‘public

concern.’” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McKinley v.

City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 1983)). By contrast, “[s]peech involves a matter of

public concern when it can fairly be considered to relate to ‘any matter of political, social, or other

concern to the community.’” Johnson v. Multnomah County, 48 F.3d 420, 422 (9th Cir. 1995)

(quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146).